Even the most sheltered among us have heard horror stories of foster care and adoption, but back before there were arms of government to protect wards of the state, there were orphanages. And before orphanages, there was baby farming.

“Baby farming” was a term coined during the Victorian Era to describe the practice of taking custody of unwanted children or those whose parents were unable to care for them, for a small fee. Essentially, a baby farm was a for-profit orphanage. The practice of baby farming was most widespread in urban areas of late-Victorian Era England, but it was also prevalent in North America and Oceania.

In an era when the most prevalent form of contraception was abortion, for working-class Victorian women who found themselves unable to care for a child, a less dangerous alternative was to surrender their newborn or, “put them out to nurse” at baby farms for a small weekly fee. Most women who chose this route assumed that their child would be properly cared for and receive a wet nurse, attention, room and board at the very least. After all, as referenced heavily in the writings of Jane Austen, wealthier women were also known to put their infants in the care of wet nurses – women who were not the childrens’ biological mothers, but who would breastfeed the children. The fictional character Grenouille of Perfume, as well as the titular character of Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist were both residents of baby farms.

Story at a glance

The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision in a case over religious foster care agencies discriminating against same-sex couples.

The case pits religious conservatives and those who don’t believe in same-sex marriage against the LGBTQ+ community.

LGBTQ youth are over-represented in the foster care system compared to cisgender and heterosexual youth.

Since the day after the last presidential election, LGBTQ parents and hopefuls have been on edge, waiting for the Supreme Court to decide whether they can have a family of their own.

Mumbai: As many as 2,290 children in Maharashtra have lost either one or both parents to COVID-19 infection so far, sources said on Thursday. While 2,183 children have lost one parent, 107 lost both the parents during the pandemic, the sources in the state Women and Child Development Department said.

"The government has got custody of 10 out of the 107 children as there is nobody to look after them," they said. The data about the orphaned children has been compiled based on the inputs given by the district task forces headed by the collectors.

The government had set up a 10-member task force in each of the 36 districts in the state to identify the children, who were orphaned due to the pandemic.

The task force will also oversee the arrangements of their shelter and supervise their adoption to ensure that there is no trafficking and exploitation.

Comments

Hiring Project Supporter Expertise Center Intercountry Adoption

Ministry of Justice and Security

V 2.0 dated. 15 August 2018

1

DAS Office IUC VenJ Quotation

A Mother’s Story

We are in a hotel room in a sub-Saharan African metropolis. We sit across from each other on chairs that somehow seem too tall compared to the small coffee table between us. It is late afternoon and the sun is hanging low, just above the rooftops – large, dusty and orange. Yet, the heavy curtains are drawn and the room is cool and the light dim. The sound of rush hour traffic fills up the room and I close the balcony door behind her to avoid any background noise on the recording.

“How old were you when you got pregnant?” I ask as I sit back down.

“I was 16. Same age as she is now”.

She tells me that she was in a relationship with the child’s father but that the pregnancy was not planned. She was still in school and her mother got so angry that she threw her out of the house. They found a rental home but money was tight and they were not able to give their daughter what she needed.

Hundreds of women who were forced to give up babies for adoption in the 1950s, 60s and 70s are demanding a formal government apology.

Many of the women were unmarried teenagers when they became pregnant, and gave birth in church-run “mother and baby homes” in the UK.

An estimated quarter of a million women were coerced into having babies adopted during the period. In recent years, some have said they were made to feel shame and guilt.

Three years ago, Jill Killington told the Observer: “I was never asked whether I wanted to go ahead with the adoption. It was a fait accompli.”

She became pregnant in 1967 at the age of 16. Her baby Liam was taken from her nine days after she gave birth. “I was expected to just go on with my life as though nothing had happened … I’m certain it has had an impact on my life. There’s a cycle of grief and anger. A kind of melancholy is always there in the back of your mind.”

(CNN)I adopted my daughter from foster care. It took a specialized village to help her succeed.

The day our daughter toddled around a corner of her foster mother's house in a peach pantsuit and flashed my husband and me a mischievous grin, we knew we were her parents.

We also knew we had made the right choice in adopting her from our state foster care system. What we didn't know was how much we'd rely on medical professionals, educators and mentors over the next 13 years to raise her.

She'd had a rough start in life. Relinquished at birth to the state, she spent her first 18 months in a foster home with three other children her age. The repercussions of too-little eye contact and too-little cuddling in that critical first year of life didn't surface until she entered first grade, when she suffered from separation anxiety so severe that we finally pulled her out of the classroom and found her a pediatric psychologist and alternative schooling.

Longing for love

The movement for an adoption apology for women forced to give up their babies because they were unmarried is gathering pace.

Whenever a government is asked to apologise for historical injustice, there are sceptics. It was a different era; it was a long time ago; it won’t make any difference…The comments sections of last night’s news stories are full of views like this.

But listen to the words of Judy Baker, forced to give up her baby girl after she fell pregnant at 18: ‘It would be very good if somebody said: I’m sorry. It would be so powerful, to show people that what happened to us was wrong.’

When the Australian government apologised for similar practices in 2013, it was met with a standing ovation. In January this year the Irish Prime Minister apologised for a "…dark, difficult and shameful chapter" of Irish history, in which many babies died in homes for unmarried mothers, and others were forcibly adopted.

In this situation, a government apology is, simply, the right thing to do, for the women and for the children they lost.

ADOPTION - In July 2020, after having thought about the issue of parenthood, I decided to participate in the first information meeting in order to start the process to obtain approval .

Absolutely aware of the difficulties that await me (44 years old, single) I also like to believe that my job (school teacher) can help to counterbalance.

This first meeting is done by video, about fifteen families are present and the person from social services is straightforward: it's complicated, but not impossible.

She tells us about the large number of families with regard to the very small number of children to be adopted , adoption in France vs. adoption abroad (at least 10,000 euros, gulp's).

She tells us that single people or same-sex couples are not discriminated against, that income is not discriminatory either.

By Ashley Albert

Special To The Medium

My name is Ashley Albert and I am a Parent Leader. I want to raise awareness about a federal law that has devastated Black, Indigenous and People of Color’s (BIPOC) children and families. The Adoption Safe Families Act (ASFA), written by Former Senator and current President Joe Biden, was passed in 1997 by the Clinton Administration. Its intent was to improve the safety of children, and to not leave children lingering in foster care. It promoted adoptions and other permanent homes for children.

Under ASFA, states receive millions of dollars for exceeding the average number of adoptions their states complete in specified years. But this provides different outcomes for different families. To further promote adoptions, ASFA stipulates that courts can terminate the rights of birth parents whose children are in foster care within two years. This controversial provision within this law is called the “15-22 rule”. If a child has been in foster care for 15 out of 22 months, states must move to terminate the biological parents’ rights. This mandate hinders birth parents from regaining their parental rights even when they are in positions to provide a safe, permanent home environment for their children.

This law, and how it is carried out, disproportionately moves children from lower-income families of color to middle and upper-income White families, which destroys the former for the benefit of the latter, and harms both the individuals and the communities involved. In 2016, I was told to sign an open adoption agreement in order to maintain a relationship with my kids. I was told that if I didn’t sign the papers that I would never see my kids again. I signed the papers on January 5, 2016 in hopes of maintaining a relationship with my children. I went to court to enforce and modify the open adoption agreement, and successfully won. However, it took one year and eleven months before I would be able to see my children again. At the same time, I found out that my daughter’s name had been changed, which, according to the original agreement, they were not supposed to do. Before signing the papers, I noted two things I wanted written in the Open Adoption Agreement. 1. DO NOT CHANGE THE CHILDREN’S NAMES! 2. To have visitation. I have been having a hard time getting support to have the adoptive mom abide by the order. I would have never signed the agreement if my kid’s names were going to be changed. I felt betrayed because I only relinquished my constitutional rights to parent on the specific condition that my child’s name would not be changed. My rights were violated when the name was changed and visits withheld. There is no accountability or responsibility to the harm my family and I have suffered because of this. King County Superior Court found there to be a breach of contract by the adoptive mom and other parties, and allowed me to file a tort claim with the state of Washington against the Dept. of Children, Youth and Families for violating my constitutional rights as a parent. I filed a claim in January 2021, but to date, I have received little or no support from state agencies that I believed were supposed to help people in my situation.